As long as people continue to think that controlling and managing systems is always the best way to achieve an end result, nihilistic philosophies such as libertarianism, anarchism, etc will continue to be treated as anti-intellectual or idiotic.

I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.

All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.

This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.

It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.

As long as people continue to think that controlling and managing systems is always the best way to achieve an end result, nihilistic philosophies such as libertarianism, anarchism, etc will continue to be treated as anti-intellectual or idiotic.

I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.

All I received was cognitive dissonance. It was treated as if it were an axiom -- that speed limits were necessary for safety, so I was quickly rebutted. Nearly exiled as the village idiot when my theory has been proven.

This is how these philosophies are treated. It's going to take some evolution or large enlightenment before people can open up to these sort of things: negating what currently exists for better alternatives.

It seems it is only instinct to build up upon garbage and somehow turn it into a structure that doesn't collapse on itself.

Interesting concept. Of course I'm assuming you're talking about less wrecks. Obviously the faster you're going the less chance you'll survive the crash (assuming everything else is equal). Also you'd be more alert but have less time to react. I think it would be interesting to compare areas that have similar traffic and different limits. For example a road in the middle of no where Montana (no limit) vs a road with similar traffic in Texas etc. You could do the same comparing the autobahn to a similar road with a low limit 100kph or whatever. Obviously have to eliminate the other variables.

For some reason it seems Americans crash more to me, I'm going to look in to it more. I've lived in a lot of countries and they all seem to drive worse (more crazy / faster) and crash less. I don't get it.I'm in Chile now and it makes national news when someone dies in a car wreck yet back in the states it made the local paper and maybe national news if it was an entire cheerleading squad or something, maybe.

I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.

I have read quite a lot of research papers about road accidents, but I haven't seen any research that supports or dismisses your claim. What I notice however is that the speed I need to "stay awake" is increasing as I get more used to driving at a certain speed. In the beginning even driving below the limit would feel very fast, but now I can be 20% above and still be bored. No matter how alert the speed makes me, higher speed leaves less time to react, so at some point it would be better to be bored.

Anyway, the number of deaths is usually what is targeted, not the number of accidents. Above about 55-70 MPH (depending on the kind of accident) the chance of dying in an accident starts increasing significantly, so naturally it is more effective to lower the speed.

I just tried arguing with people that driving higher than the speed limit or eliminating the speed limit altogether would lead to safer travel. If you were to drive faster -- not recklessly -- in your daily commutes you would statistically be subject to less accidents. 1) you would be forced to be aware of your surroundings and 2) people would be more aware of your movement.

I have read quite a lot of research papers about road accidents, but I haven't seen any research that supports or dismisses your claim. What I notice however is that the speed I need to "stay awake" is increasing as I get more used to driving at a certain speed. In the beginning even driving below the limit would feel very fast, but now I can be 20% above and still be bored. No matter how alert the speed makes me, higher speed leaves less time to react, so at some point it would be better to be bored.

Anyway, the number of deaths is usually what is targeted, not the number of accidents. Above about 55-70 MPH (depending on the kind of accident) the chance of dying in an accident starts increasing significantly, so naturally it is more effective to lower the speed.

Well, there is a middle ground. I guess what I am mainly against is the overconfidence speed limits and other road restrictions give to drivers.

I was reading an article in my favourite magazine which said that women lie more than men. Do you think this is honestly true? My personal belief says no. Well because I have been hurt by both women and men. Men and women are the same. Lots of movers are women such as Jocelyn Bell, and nihilism a philosopher such as Ayn Rand. Because she had that feminine outlook from her childhood and the experiences a young girl (such as myself) has to deal with like the attention .etc I have found that this gives us a unique perspective perspective on life that allows for interesting 'out-of-the-box' thinking. In some ways this happens so often, that there is a strong argument to a genetic component as I read has been proved by scientists. Personal experiences prove this to me.

Atheism FTW!!!

Ayn Rand most likely despised nihilists and the idea of subjective morality.

For some reason it seems Americans crash more to me, I'm going to look in to it more. I've lived in a lot of countries and they all seem to drive worse (more crazy / faster) and crash less. I don't get it.I'm in Chile now and it makes national news when someone dies in a car wreck yet back in the states it made the local paper and maybe national news if it was an entire cheerleading squad or something, maybe.

Americans crash more because the vast majority of people are right eye dominant and Americans drive on the right for historical reasons. Nowadays people just pay the highwaymen instead of drawing their weapon so why not drive on the left side and avoid accidents, idunno,lol

Speed limits don't work very well because they are fighting the symptom.

It's certainly true that degree of injury and likelyhood of death increases sharply with crash speed.

But the likelyhood of crashing in the first place depends mainly on the driver's attitude+behaviour, not their speed.

Here's my theory:

The vast majority of idiot drivers also happen to be fast drivers. So, even though not all fast drivers are idiot drivers, the idiot drivers are disproportionally represented among fast drivers. Statistically, this means fast drivers crash more often than slow drivers giving the appearance that speed is causing the crashes.

We can choose to build and maintain a safe transportation system that removes human error and therefor be safer and more efficient. We don't because the established interests would lose money if this were the case. That is why a change in values is necessary if we are going to ever become civilized.

We can choose to build and maintain a safe transportation system that removes human error and therefor be safer and more efficient. We don't because the established interests would lose money if this were the case. That is why a change in values is necessary if we are going to ever become civilized.

I disagree. The desire to build is innate. Profits, whether it be for money or the love of man, fuels this desire. The fact is the desire is there. When we degrade man to just another gear in a whole machine, that is purported as an entire living organism, is when we have a problem. This only suppresses any natural desire to care or build for man in the first place. The only change in values we need is the destruction of the desire to control man on an individual level.

We can choose to build and maintain a safe transportation system that removes human error and therefor be safer and more efficient. We don't because the established interests would lose money if this were the case. That is why a change in values is necessary if we are going to ever become civilized.

I disagree. The desire to build is innate. Profits, whether it be for money or the love of man, fuels this desire. The fact is the desire is there. When we degrade man to just another gear in a whole machine, that is purported as an entire living organism, is when we have a problem. This only suppresses any natural desire to care or build for man in the first place. The only change in values we need is the destruction of the desire to control man on an individual level.

You couldn't function as an individual. We are a social animal, and require social stimulus in order to live, grow and develop. The illusion of individuality is perpetuated in order for you to consume at a greater level than you would otherwise.

We can choose to build and maintain a safe transportation system that removes human error and therefor be safer and more efficient. We don't because the established interests would lose money if this were the case. That is why a change in values is necessary if we are going to ever become civilized.

I disagree. The desire to build is innate. Profits, whether it be for money or the love of man, fuels this desire. The fact is the desire is there. When we degrade man to just another gear in a whole machine, that is purported as an entire living organism, is when we have a problem. This only suppresses any natural desire to care or build for man in the first place. The only change in values we need is the destruction of the desire to control man on an individual level.

You couldn't function as an individual. We are a social animal, and require social stimulus in order to live, grow and develop. The illusion of individuality is perpetuated in order for you to consume at a greater level than you would otherwise.

Happiness and perception can only occur on an individual level and what makes an individual happy can only be determined by said individual. Other beings may be required for an adequate survival; however, that doesn't mean their cooperation has to be acquired by force. In the end, it is in everybody's best interest to voluntary cooperate with one another in the first place. Prosperity should be able to occur through individual voluntary consent if there is any hope for the species.

Prosperity should be able to occur through individual voluntary consent if there is any hope for the species.

I'm glad we agree.

I think we all agree on that here. The details and the means to this end is a different story. Personally, I don't think it's relevant. I believe through gradual failures and lots of rubble we'll figure it out. It might be a decade or a millenia from now but things will just have to get better one Winter at a time.

Happiness and perception can only occur on an individual level and what makes an individual happy can only be determined by said individual.

This is where we disagree though. You seem to assume that people live in a vacuum, being fully capable of deciding for themselves what affects their emotions and state of mind. In fact, we are heavily influenced by our environment, and the society we develop in. Certainly, the things that make you happy are not at all the things that make an Eskimo happy, nor a man who lived 10,000 years ago. You are conditioned to feel, believe and behave in the manner that you were brought up in. No one can choose what makes them happy, they are conditioned to be happy.

Happiness and perception can only occur on an individual level and what makes an individual happy can only be determined by said individual.

This is where we disagree though. You seem to assume that people live in a vacuum, being fully capable of deciding for themselves what affects their emotions and state of mind. In fact, we are heavily influenced by our environment, and the society we develop in. Certainly, the things that make you happy are not at all the things that make an Eskimo happy, nor a man who lived 10,000 years ago. You are conditioned to feel, believe and behave in the manner that you were brought up in. No one can choose what makes them happy, they are conditioned to be happy.

I would like to think I have the ability to think through my emotions. Sure their are triggers in my environment but I still maintain my stasis and control of my actions. I feel I have an adequate amount of control over my perception and happiness. No other man should be obligated to them nor be held accountable for the possible actions that may derive from them for I am in control.

My environment may have shaped me but I owe nothing to it.

...and, believe it or not, I have some say in what makes me happy. I have gone through major depression and near suicide. I have successfully modified my perception. You cannot speak for every individual.